ISABELITA REODICA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 125066, July 8, 1998

Facts:
A complaint charging petitioner, Isabelita Reodica, with the crime of
reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and slight physical injuries
was filed before the Fiscal’s office on October 20, 1987.
On January 13, 1988, an information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati charging the petitioner for the abovementioned offense. The Regional Trial
Court found the victim guilty as charged, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court.
On appeal, the petitioner raised the defense of prescription.

Issue:
Whether or not prescription has set in.

Held:
We cannot apply Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which
provides that in cases covered thereby, such as offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, as in the instant case, “the prosecution
commences by the filing of a complaint or information directly with the MeTC,
RTC or MCTC without need of a prior preliminary examination or investigation;
provided that in Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities, said cases may be
commenced only by information.” However, this Section cannot be taken to mean
that the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of a complaint or
information directly with said courts.
It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a matter of
substantive law. Pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution, this
Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights. Hence, in case of conflict between the Rule
on Summary Procedure promulgated by this Court and the Revised Penal Code,
the latter prevails.
In the instant case, as the offenses involved are covered by the Revised
Penal Code, Article 91 thereof and the rulings in Francisco and Cuaresma apply.
Thus, the prescriptive period for the quasi offenses in question was interrupted by
the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office three days after the vehicular
mishap and remained tolled pending the termination of this case. We cannot,
therefore, uphold petitioner’s defense of prescription of the offenses charged in the
information in this case.